Comments on: FCoE: Unovering the CNA – Deep Dive http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed with nigel poulton Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:49:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Al http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-1207 Al Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:20:20 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-1207 More NPIV Please :)   I have seen so many manuals an tutorials and they were all like hyrogliphics  to me...   but just reading what youve written so far has improved my undestanding allot , all in a few words !! More NPIV Please :)
 
I have seen so many manuals an tutorials and they were all like hyrogliphics  to me…
 
but just reading what youve written so far has improved my undestanding allot , all in a few words !!

]]> By: Nigel Poulton http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-532 Nigel Poulton Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:39:51 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-532 @ <strong>Julie Herd Goodman</strong> - <br /><br />It seems that I forgot about your question amid the influx of chat both here on the blogsite and also via twitter....<br /><br />I will try and find time to dig into this deeper in a post in the future, but for now I hope its enough to say that it is accomplished via Ethernet Priorities.  I talked about this a little in my post FCoE: Lesson #1 and in a little more detail in the comments to that post<br /><br />@ <strong>Randy Bias</strong> - <br /><br />Re why save CPU cycles.  I will probably try and write a full blown post on this in the future, but for now.......  I suppose its not necessary in on every server and not even necessary on every server running a hypervisor.  However, this section was aimed primarily at hypervisor installations, and with the ratio of VMs per core on the rise then anything you can do release the main CPU for core hypervisor tasks must surely be a benefit.  <br /><br />It also adds a string to your virtualisation bow, making virtualisation more practical for high performance apps that might currently be limited by the performance of the I/O subsystem.  With moderm CPUs offering so many VM related helps, if we dont see similar features on I/O adapters they will fall behind and become the bottleneck/weak point.  <br /><br />As for software FCoE, there are software FCoE implementations available, but obviously they dont bring any of the above mentioned performance benefits.... @ Julie Herd Goodman –

It seems that I forgot about your question amid the influx of chat both here on the blogsite and also via twitter….

I will try and find time to dig into this deeper in a post in the future, but for now I hope its enough to say that it is accomplished via Ethernet Priorities.  I talked about this a little in my post FCoE: Lesson #1 and in a little more detail in the comments to that post

@ Randy Bias –

Re why save CPU cycles.  I will probably try and write a full blown post on this in the future, but for now…….  I suppose its not necessary in on every server and not even necessary on every server running a hypervisor.  However, this section was aimed primarily at hypervisor installations, and with the ratio of VMs per core on the rise then anything you can do release the main CPU for core hypervisor tasks must surely be a benefit. 

It also adds a string to your virtualisation bow, making virtualisation more practical for high performance apps that might currently be limited by the performance of the I/O subsystem.  With moderm CPUs offering so many VM related helps, if we dont see similar features on I/O adapters they will fall behind and become the bottleneck/weak point. 

As for software FCoE, there are software FCoE implementations available, but obviously they dont bring any of the above mentioned performance benefits….

]]> By: stephen2615 http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-531 stephen2615 Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:18:08 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-531 I assume that most large IT organisations are into blades and are ditching chassis systems where possible. It just seems to be the way things are going. I was trying to get HP to say something about CNA's which are still only available as HBA's. HP seem rather unfussed by FCoE and (I get the feeling that they) believe FC is what really serious companies are using and will be for sometime. They did say that they might be offering some sort of FCoE mezz card in the future. I also think that HP have invested so much effort in Virtual Connect (VC) that they hope that people will stay with that for sometime. VC (not to be confused with Brocade's lame excuse to separate traffic in ISL's to prevent head of line blocking) is still something that I don't think offers enough to make me want to use it. The only really interesting point is that it can allow (in a C Class enclosure) connection to two fabrics from a VC card. The four ports can be split generally into two fabrics, eg, one to Brocade and one to Cisco and there is load balancing available for NPIV connections.  I have two completely separate fabrics due to a merger and I have to eventually make them one.  Why did Brocade drop interop mode with Cisco? What really bothers me is in a HP C Class enclosure, you can have 16 of the new 490c blades and those little beasts have some fabulous grunt. Why would you restrict a super system like that to such limited FC bandwidth? The VC is still only 4 x 4 Gpbs ports. I heard that IBM can offer FCoE to their blades. Anyway, for us to use CNA's, we can use an expansion slot in the C Class enclosure. One of our "people" really wants FCoE to happen so when I asked what the real value of it was, it made for good umms and errs and other time wasters. We don't have any Nexus equipment yet.  As I work for a government organisation and we tend to be like banks where we take a time will tell view, FCoE probably won’t be honestly looked at for a couple of years. Thats about the time our aging 48000's will be up for replacement. The one thing that always sits in the back of my mind is that we (as SAN people) who have made our systems as robust as possible will somehow have to hand over some control of the FC part of the network to cowboy network admins. I look forward to HP bringing out a mezz card with FCoE abilities. I just wonder how it will be connecting to the network. Sure we will be able to connect the blade to a Nexus 5000 that connects to the Director (Cisco or Brocade) but the ports on the 5000 are very limited. I believe that the FC director can be any brand. I am sure that by the time we get FCoE into our data centres, all these interesting things will be sorted out instead of appearing to be there for technologies sake. I assume that most large IT organisations are into blades and are ditching chassis systems where possible. It just seems to be the way things are going. I was trying to get HP to say something about CNA’s which are still only available as HBA’s. HP seem rather unfussed by FCoE and (I get the feeling that they) believe FC is what really serious companies are using and will be for sometime. They did say that they might be offering some sort of FCoE mezz card in the future. I also think that HP have invested so much effort in Virtual Connect (VC) that they hope that people will stay with that for sometime.
VC (not to be confused with Brocade’s lame excuse to separate traffic in ISL’s to prevent head of line blocking) is still something that I don’t think offers enough to make me want to use it. The only really interesting point is that it can allow (in a C Class enclosure) connection to two fabrics from a VC card. The four ports can be split generally into two fabrics, eg, one to Brocade and one to Cisco and there is load balancing available for NPIV connections.  I have two completely separate fabrics due to a merger and I have to eventually make them one.  Why did Brocade drop interop mode with Cisco?
What really bothers me is in a HP C Class enclosure, you can have 16 of the new 490c blades and those little beasts have some fabulous grunt. Why would you restrict a super system like that to such limited FC bandwidth? The VC is still only 4 x 4 Gpbs ports.
I heard that IBM can offer FCoE to their blades. Anyway, for us to use CNA’s, we can use an expansion slot in the C Class enclosure. One of our "people" really wants FCoE to happen so when I asked what the real value of it was, it made for good umms and errs and other time wasters. We don’t have any Nexus equipment yet.  As I work for a government organisation and we tend to be like banks where we take a time will tell view, FCoE probably won’t be honestly looked at for a couple of years. Thats about the time our aging 48000’s will be up for replacement.
The one thing that always sits in the back of my mind is that we (as SAN people) who have made our systems as robust as possible will somehow have to hand over some control of the FC part of the network to cowboy network admins.
I look forward to HP bringing out a mezz card with FCoE abilities. I just wonder how it will be connecting to the network. Sure we will be able to connect the blade to a Nexus 5000 that connects to the Director (Cisco or Brocade) but the ports on the 5000 are very limited. I believe that the FC director can be any brand. I am sure that by the time we get FCoE into our data centres, all these interesting things will be sorted out instead of appearing to be there for technologies sake.

]]> By: Randy Bias http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Randy Bias Sun, 04 Oct 2009 08:38:26 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-530 Maybe it's just me, but the need to rip and replace to add CNAs seems like a major downside. Your article seems to imply that new silicon is highly desirable, but that seems counter intuitive to me give that so much of storage is being rapidly commoditized. Why save CPU cycles? In most environments there are more than enough to spare. Why not do FCoE in software? Is there a technological hurdle? This is something I am trying to understand better and I haven't seen a satisfactory answer one way or another. Be great to get your thoughts. Thanks, --Randy Maybe it’s just me, but the need to rip and replace to add CNAs seems like a major downside. Your article seems to imply that new silicon is highly desirable, but that seems counter intuitive to me give that so much of storage is being rapidly commoditized. Why save CPU cycles? In most environments there are more than enough to spare. Why not do FCoE in software? Is there
a technological hurdle?

This is something I am trying to understand better and I haven’t seen a satisfactory answer one way or another.

Be great to get your thoughts.

Thanks,

–Randy

]]> By: John Dias http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-529 John Dias Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:47:32 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-529 @John Dias – Hmmm I’ll have to do a little reading around the multi-pathing. Towards the end though I think your dreaming Well, I did say it would be magical! @John Dias – Hmmm I’ll have to do a little reading around the multi-pathing. Towards the end though I think your dreaming
Well, I did say it would be magical!

]]> By: Jay Livens http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-528 Jay Livens Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:51:50 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-528 Nigel, A converged FCoE/FC switch makes sense and is a good solution to enable new systems to access existing FC networks using FCoE. That said, I believe that we are also in agreement that we are unlikely to see users rip and replace existing FC installations for FCoE. FCoE will augment FC and over time may replace it as companies replace/upgrade hardware. JL (@SEPATONJay) Nigel,

A converged FCoE/FC switch makes sense and is a good solution to enable new systems to access existing FC networks using FCoE. That said, I believe that we are also in agreement that we are unlikely to see users rip and replace existing FC installations for FCoE. FCoE will augment FC and over time may replace it as companies replace/upgrade hardware.

JL (@SEPATONJay)

]]> By: Charles Hood http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-527 Charles Hood Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:35:54 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-527 Great information Nigel, I've been following your FCoE series and I love the discussion it is generating, nice job! I'd encourage you to take a look at the Brocade 1010 and 1020 FCoE CNAs at: http://www.brocade.com/products-solutions/products/server-connectivity/product-details/1010-1020-cna/index.page Brocade is the only company, to my knowledge, that provides both FCoE CNAs as well as FCoE switches and Directors. One advantage of this approach is that it allows their DCFM software tool to provide end-to-end management. Take a look and let me know what you think! Great information Nigel, I’ve been following your FCoE series and I love the discussion it is generating, nice job!

I’d encourage you to take a look at the Brocade 1010 and 1020 FCoE CNAs at:
http://www.brocade.com/products-solutions/products/server-connectivity/product-details/1010-1020-cna/index.page

Brocade is the only company, to my knowledge, that provides both FCoE CNAs as well as FCoE switches and Directors. One advantage of this approach is that it allows their DCFM software tool to provide end-to-end management. Take a look and let me know what you think!

]]> By: Steven Ruby http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-526 Steven Ruby Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:17:32 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-526 how do you see interop working out between Nexus and a Current Brocade FC fabric? how do you see interop working out between Nexus and a Current Brocade FC fabric?

]]> By: Nigel Poulton http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-525 Nigel Poulton Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:55:31 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-525 @Louis Gray - The pleasure was mine. I tweeted after the call that I felt the folks on the call were my kind of people - passionate and know their stuff.  No probs leaving your link up - good article.<br /><br />@Steven Ruby - Hi Steven long time no talk.  Yes that is what I am saying.<br /><br />@John Dias - Hmmm I'll have to do a little reading around the multi-pathing. Towards the end though I think your dreaming ;-)<br /> @Louis Gray – The pleasure was mine. I tweeted after the call that I felt the folks on the call were my kind of people – passionate and know their stuff.  No probs leaving your link up – good article.

@Steven Ruby – Hi Steven long time no talk.  Yes that is what I am saying.

@John Dias – Hmmm I’ll have to do a little reading around the multi-pathing. Towards the end though I think your dreaming ;-)

]]> By: Nigel Poulton http://blog.nigelpoulton.com/fcoe-unovering-the-cna-deep-dive/comment-page-1/#comment-524 Nigel Poulton Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:38:00 +0000 http://blogs.rupturedmonkey.com/?p=523#comment-524 @SEPATONJay - <br /><br />If you have an existing SAN, you keep it.  New hosts could come in and have CNAs installed and be connected up to an Edge/Access layer FCoE capable switch like the Brocade 8000 (top of the rack switch).  These switches accept the connections from the CNAs on the "front" and on the "back" have native FC prots that connect into your existing FC SAN.  They also have GigE ports on the "back" to connect in to your existing LAN.  So your new hosts connect into the Edge switch via CEE/FCoE and the switch then performs the decapsulation of the FCoE frame leaving it as a bare FC frame and switches is on to the native FC SAN via the FC ports on the "back".<br /><br />With this approach you keep your existing FC SAN and LAN backbone and dont really touch your existing production systems. @SEPATONJay –

If you have an existing SAN, you keep it.  New hosts could come in and have CNAs installed and be connected up to an Edge/Access layer FCoE capable switch like the Brocade 8000 (top of the rack switch).  These switches accept the connections from the CNAs on the "front" and on the "back" have native FC prots that connect into your existing FC SAN.  They also have GigE ports on the "back" to connect in to your existing LAN.  So your new hosts connect into the Edge switch via CEE/FCoE and the switch then performs the decapsulation of the FCoE frame leaving it as a bare FC frame and switches is on to the native FC SAN via the FC ports on the "back".

With this approach you keep your existing FC SAN and LAN backbone and dont really touch your existing production systems.

]]>